Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation.
Permission is granted to distribute this article for nonprofit, educational purposes if it is copied in its entirety and the journal is credited.
PARE has the right to authorize third party reproduction of this article in print, electronic and database forms.

This paper explores organizational issues that arose when implementing
portfolio assessment in eleven classrooms during the field trial of a generic
content selection framework2. Some researchers have already examined, to various
degrees, the organizational process teachers go through when implementing
portfolios within their classrooms to assess learning as opposed to showcasing
or reporting achievement. Their results point to four categories of factors that
seemed to affect portfolio implementation process:

Other studies have suggested the existence of a possible portfolio assessment
implementation process or continuum. Fingeret’s (1993) study, for example, led
to the identification ofa four-stage process revolving around specific
tasks such as examining fit within assessment practices to revision of actual
portfolio use. Calkins (1992), on the other hand, ranked teachers on a
five-point continuum based on their level of acceptance of the portfolio and its
integration within their teaching styles and approaches. The purpose of this
paper is to highlight possible relationships between input and process variables
and resulting organizational issues surrounding portfolio assessment
implementation in the classroom when a generic content selection framework is
provided.

Content selection framework

Portfolio assessment is defined here as a cumulative and ongoing
collection of entries that are selected and commented on by the student, the
teacher and/or peers, to assess the student’s progress in the development of a
competency (Simon, & Forgette-Giroux, 2000). The generic portfolio
assessment content selection framework recommends the collection of entries
(items or contents) along five learning dimensions of a competency:

cognitive,

affective,

behavioural,

metacognitive, and

developmental.

The pieces of evidence are combined to provide an interrelated, complete,
dynamic, and holistic picture of the students’ development toward mastery of a
complex skill such as problem solving or oral communication. Whereas the five
categories are considered fixed within the framework, organizational decisions
regarding storing, scheduling, sharing of responsibilities, number and source of
entry among others, within each category, "remain flexible for better integration
and adaptation to the teachers' individual teaching and assessment styles and
practices" (Simon & Forgette-Giroux, 2000, p.89).

Methodology

Eleven volunteer teachers from five school boards in Eastern Ontario,
Canada, agreed or asked to apply within their classes, the portfolio assessment content selection framework described above. Five of these teachers taught in two of
the three boards that initiated a three-day workshop near the end of the school
year to present the framework, while the other six teachers entered the study at
various points during the following year.(See Table 1 for a description
of the teacher variables). The latter received documentation and coaching on the
framework upon request. All teachers were each visited twice from February to
May in the year following the three-day workshop. The visits consisted of two
in-class observations of portfolio use, followed by a 30 to 45-minute
semi-structured interview with each teacher. Of the fifteen general questions,
the following fourwere more or less related to organizational issues
surrounding portfolio assessment implementation:

How often do you use the
portfolio during the week?

What responsibilities do the students have toward
their portfolios?

Was the portfolio used within or across subjects? and

Describe any management issues such as storage and format related to the use of
the portfolio for assessment purposes.

Observations within the classroom and
content analysis of sample portfolios complemented the data obtained from the
interview.

Table 1: Input variables
for each teacher

Variables

Teachers

school
board

grade level

discipline

focus of portfolio
assessment

year of portfolio
use

attendance at a three-day
workshop

attendance at group meetings (total of
three)

Mark1

1

1

Language

Writing

1

-

3

Corey

2

9

Geography

Communication

-

*2

-*

Gisele

2

7/8

Language

Communication

1

-*

1*

Sally

3

8

All

All

-

*

2

John

3

7/8

All

All

-

-*

-

Paul

3

7

Writing

All

-

-*

-

George

4

9

Math/Science

Problem solving

2

-

3*

Frances

4

8

Math

Problem solving

2

-

3*

Edith

5

6

Math

Problem solving

-

-

2*

Joanne

5

7/8

Math

Problem solving

-

-

3*

Carol

5

9

Geography/
Science

Problem solvingCritical thinking Team work

-

-

2*

Fictional names have been given to protect the anonymity of the participants.

An asterisk indicates that the respective school board liaison member also attended

Results

A closer examination of the participants’ responses to the questions, their
actions, and the content analysis lead to four categories of results. These are
presented in the following sections.

Time spent on portfolio assessment

The eleven teachers showed variability in planning and scheduling time around
portfolio use. The three teachers from the school board #3 (See Table 1) allowed
occasions for the students to select items from a file folder of their best
work, to reflect briefly on each item selected, or to mark their own projects.
This time was unscheduled and generally seen as extra to their teaching load.
The three Grade Nine teachers, on the other hand, planned monthly or biweekly
slots of time for their students to select and sort items. The five other
teachers, all focusing either on problem solving or communication skills,
reserved a full period each Friday or one every day or every other day for
portfolio use.

Management issues related to portfolio format, storage and access

Again, all three teachers from school board #3 used a brown accordion style
folder with an elastic tie and five inside pockets provided by their board.
These were stored in cardboard boxes or in a filing cabinet. The Grade Nine and
Grade Eight teachers from school board #2 constructed their portfolios with two
large cardboard sheets glued together on three sides. These were stacked
haphazardly on a shelf at the back of the classroom. The six others provided
their students with manila style folders with two inside pockets all stored in
boxes or filing cabinet. All participants had their students keep a
"working portfolio" in addition to the assessment portfolio and the
students usually did not have free access to their portfolios.

Shared roles

Judging by their comments and actions, George, Paul,
John, and Corey tended
to underestimate their students’ ability to set up, maintain, and reflect on
their portfolios. On the few occasions when their students were asked to
reflect, they were only required to justify the selection of individual entries.
The students’ involvement in organizing their portfolios was encouraged
primarily to ease teaching tasks. On the other hand, Frances, Edith, and Joanne
invited their students to reflect on and self-assess individual applications of
problem solving skills. Gisele, Mark and Sally encouraged their students to
organize their work themselves and to compare various items within their
portfolios using rubrics, checklists, and award stickers.

Context surrounding item selection

The three teachers from school board #3 had their students select entries
across subjects but with no clear focus. They had been initially instructed by
school board officials to use the portfolio in support of the report card. The
three Grade Nine teachers assessed communication or problem solving skills
across one or two subjects but felt constrained by the school administrative
structure and policies. The Grade One teacher assessed writing skills across
Language Arts. In order to holistically assess communications skills across all
Language Arts strands using the portfolio, the Grade Eight teacher from school
board #2 had her students provide evidence of the framework’s five learning
dimensions but the entries were not always clearly related to the targeted
skill. In stressing problem solving skills, Joanne, Edith, and Frances extended
the selection of entries to various disciplines.

Discussion and conclusion

The results suggest the formulation of three sets of research hypotheses. The
first alludes to the portfolio assessment implementation process as involving
four types of organizational issues: temporal, spatial, human and contextual.
Temporal issues concern time spent on planning and scheduling portfolio
assessment related activities and their fit within existing teaching and
assessment practices. Spatial issues deal with organizing the portfolio’s
format, physical characteristics, storage, and access. Human aspects include
role-sharing such responsibilities as establishing and updating a table of
contents, dating and sorting portfolio entries, reflection, and marking for
formative or summative assessment purposes. Finally, contextual matters have to
do with specifying the object of assessment, determining the scope of
disciplines from which portfolio items are selected, and establishing their
quantity and quality.

The level of variability among the participating teachers regarding
organizational issues suggests a second hypothesis: In implementing portfolio
assessment within their classroom, teachers fall along a three or four stage
continuum. Novice teachers tend to loosely plan and schedule a rather unfocussed
collection of best work across subjects. Storage, access and maintenance are
controlled mainly by the teacher. Entries are collected and assessed separately.
At the next stage of the continuum, the planned collection over time still
remains largely under the responsibility of the teacher but now contains
evidence related to the development of a few more or less specified skills or
competencies. Students have input in deciding portfolio format, access and
storage, and their reflections on and determination of their level of competency
are based primarily on the comparison of first drafts to final products within
individual assignments. In the final stages, portfolio assessment empowers
students to select a minimum number of entries from a variety of contexts in
order to provide evidence of the development of all five learning dimensions
associated with one or a few clearly articulated competencies. Students
regularly reflect on and judge their progress using structured prompts and
rubrics that encourage the examination of links and relationships among the
portfolio contents.

The data from this study also indicate that particular location and movement
of the teachers on the implementation continuum may be a function of variables
such as willingness to empower students, previous portfolio experience, school
board expectations, training, support and guidance, grade level, and discipline
being taught. These factors may be grouped under Myerson’s (1997) three
generic categories of factors said to affect the implementation process of
change within the classroom: teacher uniqueness, professional development, and
teaching environment. They also relate to three of Stiggins, & Conklin’s
(1992) eight assessment environment dimensions: teacher characteristics, teacher
perception of students, and policy issues. Whereas the portfolio assessment item
selection framework offers specific parameters around assessment purpose, focus,
nature, and context, its successful implementation may depend particularly on
the extent to which teachers a) accept that portfolio assessment integrates
learning and assessment activities, b) obtain training and coaching specifically
related to the framework, c) recognize that students are capable and responsible
decision-makers with vested interest in self-assessing their own learning, d)
learn to better manage the quarter of their professional time they tend to spend
on assessment (Stiggins et al., 1992) by planning fewer but complete,
sophisticated, and meaningful assessments of competencies involving their
students throughout the assessment process, and e) contribute to the development
of assessment policies at the school level that facilitate cooperation among
teachers, particularly at the high school level. The third set of research
hypotheses could focus on the exact nature of the relationships between each of
these variables and portfolio assessment implementation in the classroom.

Notes

1. The research reported in this paper was partially supported by a transfer
grant from the Ministry of Education and Training, Ontario, Canada to The
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Sawyer, M. H. (1994). Professional Development and Educational Reform: A
Study of Changes in Teachers and Classrooms During Literature Portfolio
Implementation. Unpublished doctoral thesis, State University of New York at
Albany.